And The University of Texas at Austin Sociology Department hired this guy !!

]]>By: sue jeffershttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/10/56460/comment-page-1#comment-279030
Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:59:20 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56460#comment-279030I couldn’t find any science in his writing, and he repeats the pattern found in his “new family structure study” – admitting that a method is invalid, then using that same method to “prove” his opinions. if i had such a hack for a professor i’d be pretty pissed. if the students in his dept are lucky he spends most of his time conducting “research” and not “teaching”
]]>By: ZRAinSWVAhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/10/56460/comment-page-1#comment-278661
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:35:03 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56460#comment-278661Andrew wrote, “Because otherwise, we’re talking about how a person treats their girlfriend relative to how a person treats their wife. And, honestly, that’s different.”

Clap…Clap…Clap…

So right.

Thank you.

]]>By: Andrewhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/10/56460/comment-page-1#comment-278647
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:37:43 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56460#comment-278647Eric, I had your thought on the way to the bathroom at 4 in the morning the other day (what a sad, sad existence I clearly lead)… until gays have access to equal marriage, we aren’t talking apples to apples, are we.

Because otherwise, we’re talking about how a person treats their girlfriend relative to how a person treats their wife. And, honestly, that’s different.

If you read Andrew Sullivan’s book Virtually Normal he speaks to this – that low expectations are met with low results – and that if you relegate gays to insecure unofficial relationships, you’re more likely to get the kind of behavior that lower expectations entails.

Now we’re dangerously back into the territory of telling people how to define their marriages, but, and I think this is fair to say, doing otherwise on the gay marriage front leaves prohibitionist heteros talking out both sides of their mouths, and leverage logical loops to justify their case.

Very likely. You see, heterosexual men are so ravenously randy, so easily led astray, and so dependent on role models for any hope of restraint, that just becoming aware of those two non-monogamist gay couples is enough to open the floodgates. This is why winning the war on gay marriage is essential for the survival of civilization. If gay people had any decency they would happily surrender the quality of their lives in order to help raise the moral standards of straight people.

]]>By: Patrick Chttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/10/56460/comment-page-1#comment-278421
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:21:30 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56460#comment-278421Matt earlier said to look at Craigslist to see all the open relationships. I looked at it and guess what I found – a lot of heterosexually married men cheating on their wives. It certainly did not appear to be “slipping up” one time but to be deliberate cheating, and I’m guessing it to be regular and repeated.

Matt assumes the best of heterosexuals and the worst of gays. That tells me everything I need to know.

]]>By: Eric in Oaklandhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/10/56460/comment-page-1#comment-278364
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:02:04 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56460#comment-278364It deserves to be repeated that most of the data on gay and lesbian relationships involve less stable forms than marriage. If straight marriages happen to be more healthy and stable than gay non-marital relationships, that says more about the type of relationship than the orientation of the couples.

Regnerus really seems to be a one trick pony. His child rearing study was largely based on this deliberate confusion (relationship status with orientation) and this new argument relies heavily on the same tactic.

It is rather bold of Regnerus to say that straight men will observe gay marriages and say to their wives, “Honey buns if the gays can do it why not me too?”

That is the real crux of Regnerus’ argument. He builds up to it by pulling out some statistics says that gay men have less monogamous relationships. All of that is a build up to his central point. And frankly I find his central point laughable, simply laughable.

First off there are not that many of you, maybe 3% to 4% 100% gay. AND not EVERY gay couple DOES have a non-monogamist relationship.

Take a neighborhood with 100 houses. 4 houses have gay couples residents. Let’s go overboard and say even 50% are non monogamist so that is 2 houses. How likely IS it those those 2 gay non monogamist couples are HIGHLY influencing the other 98 couples in the neighborhood?

And not only that but in those other 98 houses there is plenty of straight cheating going on. YET we are going to hang the *demise of Civil Marriage as we know it,* on the heads of those two non monogamist gay couples in a neighborhood of 100 homes? It’s ridiculous if you really think about it. Maybe, maybe maybe to stretch it IF you had higher population numbers maybe maybe maybe his point would have a shred of validity to it. Like if you were 25% of the population or something.

You can’t tell me that with the small number of gay men, and the even fewer numbers of gay men who choose to partner in an open relationship, is gonna affect *in any significant way* the other 98%. Regnerus is simply taking another opportunity to shame sexual minorities. To pick on you, to blame you for the evils of the world. I’m not buying it.